Talk:IRS targeting controversy/Archive 2

Accusations against senators
The USNWR report that this is sourced to is clearly labeled as an op-ed column, and is written by a conservative campaign strategist who once worked for John Cornyn. It is not ostensibly-neutral reporting. Its accusations must be attributed and labeled accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. Senator Dick Durbin, among others, publicly called for IRS investigations into conservative groups in the wake of Citizens United. His website still has a public call into said investgiation. *MicheleYD (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Biased reporting can still be used as RS, as can biased sourcing. As MicheleYD notes, the calls for the IRS to investigate the Tea Party were sometimes public. That being said, we certainly could improve sourcing, perhaps by also using the 2010 NY Times article that is used as sourcing in the US News and World Report article referenced above. That gets things out of the Op-Ed page and into the news pages. Or is this going to be knocked out because it's too early. After all, this is the 2013 IRS scandal. We're currently operating under the fiction that it wasn't viewed as scandalous in 2010, a point contradicted by the NY Times article. TMLutas (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jon Stewart quote
After I added this Jon Stewart quote, it was removed by NorthBySouthBaranof, who commented, "The reactions of political satirists are generally non-encyclopedic. Don't see reactions from Colbert or Stewart posted in similar articles."

Political satirist Jon Stewart said, "Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama. Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their f***ing heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents."

What do other editors here think about including or not including this in the article?

Ss6j81avz (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at other articles on similar political scandals (Lawyergate, Niger uranium forgeries, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, etc.), and didn't find Colbert or Stewart cited in any of them. That suggests to me that their over-the-top satirical commentary is not generally considered useful for Wikipedia purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help us to explain the facts. I have to agree with the reason given for its removal: it's not encyclopedic.  Federales (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It could fit in to a wider section of cultural commentary, see Watergate scandal for an example but it would be an awfully thin section at this point, note it and gather up more and let's see if we get enough to warrant the section. At this point I'm dubious but it could happen. That section is the closest fit I could find for a model. Good luck. TMLutas (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible AP Involvement in scandal
Lois Lerner was at ABA Committee meeting. She was asked the planted question afterwards. Then in the afternoon she spoke to press for 50 minutes by phone.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/10/im-not-good-at-math-the-irss-public-relations-disaster/ At 6:14 PM, the AP put out a story with author and 3 contributors. Two from DC and one from Boston.http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups How did the AP have this detailed article ready so soon. Why did AP say IRS said (Friday) instead of today. Obviously, this article was ready to be put out and picked by mass media for Saturday and Sunday publication. Now it turns out it was the Treasury and White House deciding on the timing and manner of the announcement and not her.http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/white-house-irs-timeline-91681.html?hp=t2_3
 * That sounds interesting. We don't have any sourcing yet so it needs to stay out for now. Do you have any reliable sources that would let this legitimately into the article in a way that will be defensible so that it stays in the article? You're alleging something of a bombshell here so pushback is fairly predictable. Let's cut to the chase and get good sourcing first. It's going to be tough because of the separate AP scandal is dominating the search engine results. TMLutas (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Current inclusion of The Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration's Report
Events and disclosures have moved well beyond this report. We already know multiple offices were involved, including the Washington IRS office. We also know many more conservative organizations were targeted than stated in that report. We also know that the statement that the private data was destroyed is false. The report is actually part of the scandal or controversy. If it is going to sit in the article and cant be there uncritically without notation that a) the numbers have of conservative groups turns out to be higher b) private data was not destroyed before being leaked c) the targeting began a year earlier than asserted d) multiple offices were involvedCarwon (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Carwon, I agree with all of your points. I think you should go ahead and add those annotations, perhaps in a new section "problems with the report". TJIC (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Will you wingnuts actually include any real sources for your "interpretation" of things, or will it be business as usual in trying to massage yet another Wikipedia article about yet another fake "controversy" with delusional right wing garbage until it's as disinformational as possible? Inquiring minds already know the answer.... -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You have now made several disparaging remarks against other editors. I suggest you read up on WP:NPA.  If your only purpose here is to attack others than I suggest you edit somewhere else.  Arzel (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Should I point out that these editors I'm criticizing seem intent on only taking the right wing POV on this, including citing *no* reliable or balanced sources, and that I actually referenced a good, balanced and thoroughly researched source (from Bloomberg), as well as direct quotes from the IG report that contradicted them? Or did you not bother to look at my overall comments before deciding to make a completely offbase assertion/threat? But I'm well aware of how Wikipedia works when it comes to "controversial" articles, so I'll back off and let things drift into....whatever. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Calling other editors "right wing trolls" "right wing fruitcakes" and "wingnuts" is unacceptable.  Arzel (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Will you wingnuts actually include any real sources" I've written 90% of this article and I've cited sources from across the media: CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NPR, White House press releases, etc. If you think that there's information that should be added to the article, please do so! TJIC (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you cherry-picked your sources and omitted key points in an obvious attempt to shape the article according to your politics. This renders the article worthless as an encyclopedic source. Specifically:


 * * There is no mention of the 2010 Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, which drove many if not most of these 501(c)(4) applications, as well as changed the rules for the IRS.


 * * There is no mention of how vague the rules were that the IRS was operating under to enforce 501(c)(4) compliance.


 * * There is no mention of how the IRS started giving right wing groups like the Tea Parties extra scrutiny after receiving tips and complaints about how these groups were actually engaged in a far higher percentage of political activity than c(4) status allows, a point I had already made earlier, to quote from the IG report: "We also received numerous referrals from the public, media, watchdog groups, and members of Congress alleging the specific section 501(c)(4) organizations were engaged in political campaign activity to an impermissible extent."


 * * There is no mention of how right wing/conservative groups went after c(4) status much more aggressively than liberal organizations, even when they were obviously blatantly political organizations first and foremost.


 * * There isn't even a mention of how the Tea Party groups apparently were just plain inept at filling out the paperwork needed to obtain 501(c)(4) status, another point made by the IRS in the IG report: "Many applications included what appeared to be incomplete or inconsistent information. For example, a number of applications indicated that the organization did not plan to conduct political campaign activity, but elsewhere described activities that appeared in fact to be such activity. It was also clear that many organizations did not understand what activities would constitute political campaign intervention under the tax."


 * In short, like I said, yet another fake scandal/controversy. Now I'm really done here. -BC aka 68.236.126.150 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Othering, it's what's for breakfast. TMLutas (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The article seemed to be saying that this TIGTA report was released to congressional investigators, "but not to the public." That makes no sense, so I deleted that phrase. Obviously, the May 14, 2013 report (number 2013-10-053) was released to the public. I downloaded a copy that same day, directly from the IRS web site. Famspear (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you did download it that day, but such a thing cannot be the basis of Wikipedia content. You need a reliable secondary source stating when/how the report was released in order to make that statement in the article. See WP:OR Federales (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would argue that that's incorrect. First, the WSJ source (which is where the link for the PDF text of the report goes) does not say even that the full report was released on May 15th. The report is dated May 14th, and unless we have some reliable, previously published third party secondary source that says the full report was released on May 15th, there is no need to find yet another secondary source that says that the report was available on May 14th. I hear what you are saying about primary and secondary sources, but this is really a minor point -- I don't think it rises to the level of "original research." Famspear (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is this: Had I added the link to the IRS web site itself (rather than the link to the WSJ web site, which was added by someone else) on May 14th, the very day it was made available, and I had added text to the article to the effect on that very day that "the report was released on May 14th....." followed by the link, I don't think that would be objectionable. That would not be original research.

A bit tangentially, I would add: Citing to and linking to the TIGTA report on the IRS web site, or on the separate TIGTA web site, might be considered to be citing to a primary source but, contrary to what many Wikipedia editors believe, citing to primary sources is allowed in Wikipedia. Citing to secondary sources is preferred, but some use of primary sources is allowed.

The term "original research" as used in Wikipedia is a term of art. Broadly speaking, practically everything that Wikipedia editors do here is "original research" -- but not in the sense in which Wikipedia is using that term. Finding, summarizing, and citing even to a secondary source is ITSELF original research in some very broad sense -- but again, not the the sense that this term is being used in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Statement unsupported by the source
"Additionally, during this time "the same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups" to liberal groups.[9]"

The bolded words are not supported by the source - the article states that the applications were improperly released to ProPublica, which is an independent investigative journalism organization, not a "liberal group." That needs to be changed when the article is unprotected. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That ProPublica is a liberal group is not under serious dispute. They're a Soros backed outfit and you can find them described as liberal all over the place. National Center for Public Policy Research, Dave Kopel of Cato talks about their slant here  TMLutas (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your bald assertion that your label "is not under serious dispute" is laughable. You have cited nothing more than a 5-year-old unsupported opinion piece and a conservative think tank. Those are not sufficient reliable sources to label ProPublica a "liberal group." Our article on ProPublica does not describe the organization in that manner. Contrast NewsMax. That line will be taken out, as it is factually wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TMLutas (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I just clicked over to the ProPublica article. As of writing, the Wikipedia article on ProPublica is tagged because large chunks of it seem to be written by someone heavily connected with ProPublica which makes judging ProPublica's ideology by the Wikipedia article on it an especially bad idea. TMLutas (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I referenced our article because if there were significant reliable sources arguing that the group was biased, they would likely be found there. There are none, apparently.
 * You do not get to label a nonprofit news organization a "liberal group" on the say-so of two people from conservative think tanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, irrelevant to the point that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. And if those two people are published in RS saying so, Wikipedia rules say that you can do that. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, it does not, any more than Wikipedia may label FOX News as a "conservative group" every time it's mentioned in an article because Media Matters for America and Michael Moore accuse it of being biased. There is a place to discuss disputed political labels for an organization - that is on the Wikipedia page for that organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you want to describe ProPublica as a liberal organization, the burden of proof is on you to provide a reliable source saying that it is. Its Wikipedia article had a small piece modified by someone called ProPubPR (not a piece discussing its ideology), and the user is already banned. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether a given source is a "liberal group" or a "conservative group" in and of itself is not generally material. In Wikipedia, sources used in the articles are allowed have liberal bias, conservative bias, or other kinds of bias. I repeat: sources can be biased, and their biased views may properly be presented in Wikipedia articles. Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia refers to the way the material is presented by Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What he said. TMLutas (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Properly presenting those views (which should be done in the ProPublica article) does not permit describing the group as a "liberal group" in this article any more than any mention of FOX News in this article permits describing it as a "conservative group." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ProPublica and MMfA are both self-admited Liberal organizations. Arzel (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ProPublica seems a bit more circumspect but MMFA's about page lets the cat out of the bag. They're there to counter conservatives. TMLutas (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The tag referred to ProPublica. Arzel attempted to group the two organizations as if they are the same. That's not going to fly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Liberal Bias and Liberal Censorship
I just wanted to put this in here to state that there is no way that this article should be deleted as was suggested further down. If nothing else, it combats wikipedia's liberal bias. Of course no matter what kind of liberal bias wikipedia has, or the mainstream media has, there is no denying that the 2013 IRS scandal exists, and wikipedia is supposed to have a page that addresses every conceivable concept in existence, as the information capacity in cyberspace is theoretically unlimited. Perhaps that should be limited to just things that don't make liberals look bad.

The idea that it should be deleted is a vote in favor of liberal censorship, which is rampant on wikipedia. Liberals tend to be the wing that is more strongly in favor of limiting knowledge, information, and enlightenment, as is evidenced here by the suggestion that this article be deleted, and no doubt, my comment here will soon be deleted as well, surely because it does not fit wikipedia's "guidelines." Before the liberal censorship authorities get here, however, hopefully a few people will see this. If wikipedia hopes to be as anti-censorship as liberals claim, this article, and my comment here should be allowed to stay, permanently, although I guess that is probably more than I should expect from American liberals. However, the very existence of this article is a step in the right direction of combating liberal censorship and and liberals' destruction of free speech. Enter appropriate counter arguments here about how this comment and or this whole article isn't relevant, and should be deleted and or rolled into the minor portion of another article. That seems to be a favorite trick of liberals on wikipedia. CaptainNicodemus (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly one person has ever suggested deleting this article, and they were overwhelmed by a community consensus involving users of all political persuasions. 'Nuff said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually not "'Nuff said" as a quick kill is not usually how the Wikipedia bias process works. Articles get proposed for merger, name changed into innocuous shadows of what they should be or subject drifted into something else. Later on they peter out and die. We had 1 attempt to kill the article outright but the article did get merged in to a larger topic for a time and there's a continuing back and forth over the scope of what constitutes the scandal. Significant chunks of people are rating this as worse than Watergate because they believe the climate that these activities created materially affected the 2012 election. That dynamic is undoubtedly playing out here. Helping get more information into the article while making sure that the proposals conform to the normal rules is what we need to raise the quality of this article and coincidentally the reputation of the project. TMLutas (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a continuing back-and-forth. That's part of the article editing process, not an expression of bias.
 * The article editing process, especially in contentious political subjects, usually has significant effort devoted to identifying and eliminating bias. I haven't seen a contentious issue yet that didn't feature lots of bias in the back and forth. That goes double for developing scandals like this one. TMLutas (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Significant chunks of people are rating this as worse than Watergate" - NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I misremembered. It was Benghazi, not the IRS scandal that was covered by this PPP poll. Look down into the crosstabs if it interests you. TMLutas (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Media Trackers/Greenhouse Solutions
In the article referenced, it is mentioned that Greenhouse Solutions was a pre-existing organization while Media Trackers was not, and that this could be the reason for the difference.  FNM   :-)  16:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Naming of article 2013 IRS scandal
This seems appropriate. As the story has developed the IRS and Treasury have admitted that more than just Tea Party organizations were targetted.Capitalismojo (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying to create a redirect based on the earlier talk section above when the lockdown began. Does anyone disagree that a new name is appropriate? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed new name is appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. "2013 IRS Scandal" is good. TJIC (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the behavior seems to have started in 2010, I have a bit of a problem with the title. Why not name it after the administration, Obama Administration IRS scandal. They own this round of this ongoing problem. TMLutas (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't call it the Nixon Administration Watergate scandal or the Reagan Administration Iran/Contra scandal, so no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the scandal occured in 2013. the behavior may have begun in 2009,2010, 2011, whenever. The event i.e. the scandal errupted in 2013. The events that triggered the War of 1812 began in the years leading up to 1812 but the war was an event. The scandal is an event. The common name is IRS Scandal. We should probably go with that. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The scandal has been going on since at least 2010. That *you* noticed it only in 2013 does not mean that other people have not noticed, talked about in RS and even litigated this thing before this year was born (just read an article that one of the pro-Israel groups is supposed to have filed papers in 2010). TMLutas (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It didn't become a news issue until 2013. It would make little sense to call it the 2010 IRS scandal when everything is referenced to 2013 sources or later.  Arzel (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't become news until 2013 only if you have a restrictive idea of what news outlets are. The Huffington Post has a story on 2011-2012 coverage. I don't think Wikipedia actually subscribes to the "if it's not in the NY Times, it doesn't exist" NE liberal parochialism. We shouldn't do that here. TMLutas (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Typically it's nice for a name to include an indication of what happened (WP:NCE) but if simply "IRS scandal" is the common name then your 2013 IRS scandal suggestion may be best. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 05:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How about "IRS targeting of conservatives scandal?"William Jockusch (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The IRS was "investigating" tea party groups. Some might say they were harassing and hindering them to help Obama. Whatever. Now it is the IRS that is being investigated. Title should change to IRS Investigation.True Observer (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to move the article to 2013 IRS Scandal. I am seeing mostly agreement but some dissent though I am not sure how serious some of it is. Can you clarify?Slp1 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "scandal" should be lowercased per WP:MOS - it's not a proper name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, thanks for reminding me! I think I would have done it right for the actual move. I was meaning more the actual words being used.  Slp1 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made the move, merging page histories to clean up over someone's copy-and-paste move in the process. Everyone, please keep in mind that a copy-and-paste move is against Wikipedia policy and is never an appropriate way to evade page protection. —Lowellian (reply) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My main concern is the lack of "this article has issues" notification, but my first issue of such concern would probably be with including "scandal" in the title. NPV? Not hardly, though perhaps that's fundamentally impossible given the current state of the American political system. As I write now, we (the people) clearly have no concrete idea what really happened or when. One of the few things we do know is that the events took place before 2013. If there really is a scandal involved, then I think it would have to involve pre-election events, which means the date would have to be before 2013. Actually, the only rationale I can imagine for "2013" is if the article is going to evolve into a focus on partisan media manipulation in 2013, which is sort of scandalous, but obviously not what the partisans on either side intend. If that is true, then this entire article will be up for deletion in a few months, though there ought to be a Wikipedia list of 'scandalous events' or 'public outrages' involving the IRS. Let me reiterate my two main points: (1) There should be 'issues' tags on the article (at least for currency and fluidity) and (2) The use of "scandal" in the title is not a neutral point of view. Shanen (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo
Tomwsulcer, I removed your photo again. There is simply no way to verify in the least that it is what you claim it to be. And if the picture is of you personally protesting, then it fails WP:COI. I have heard reports of IRS protesting, and do not have a problem with a photo which has some background imagery which could reasonably be viewed as verifying the incident. As for your personal issues I suggest you contact your congressman or senator. Arzel (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Arzel, removing a photo of protesters (myself and one other person) at the IRS site smacks of a POV-pushing. I would not make this stuff up; in the days of photo-editing, any photo could be manufactured, so you claiming that the photo fails verifiability is borderline ridiculous. Assuming duplicity fails good faith. I have added another photo showing more people, not including myself, taken by another person; if this one is deleted trust me I will bring you up before administrators on the noticeboard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And your suggestion for me to contact my congressman (you mean congressperson?) or senator about the IRS processing delay -- ludicrous.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Arzel I am interested in the detail of the conflict of interest you accuse Tomwsulcer of having. What exactly is it because I can't figure that out. It's a picture. It is, I presume, released as far as IP rights so a legitimate potential photograph. How does Tomwsulcer benefit in ways incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia? TMLutas (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * TMLutas, I got a better photo of the protest, with more people, which I assume is in the article now. For both photos, mine (shown) and Jim Bennett's, there was not a prominent "IRS" sign on the building exterior. That was the reality. And perhaps this was the complaint, that others wanted to see the letters "IRS" in the photo somewhere. Both groups gathered near Route 22 to be more visible to cars. Btw, I do not benefit economically for the cause of protesting against the IRS (unless, of course, the IRS is disbanded and everybody's taxes become more sensible -- highly unlikely to happen!) but I favor Fair Tax which is a well-studied plan in Congress to do away with the IRS and replace it with a simpler, fairer, economy-boosting approach.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to stay on topic and use this talk page to discuss the article, rather than as a WP:soapbox or (especially) looking for legal advice. Regarding an image, the general question is if the image has WP:PERTINENCE. I don't think the article mentions protests against the IRS targeting, and I don't think I've seen coverage of such protests in the news media. To me, this indicates that the image is probably not pertinent. It isn't serving to illustrate anything in the article's content, but seems kind of like an illustration of a point of view instead.
 * On the contrary, I think the image is entirely pertinent. The IRS targets partisan groups; the partisan groups protest. Highly relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The protests have been covered by the NY Times, and South Jersey Times.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. While I understood what you meant, I think it's kind of funny that you stated you are non-partisan while, in the same sentence, stating that you are a member of a (tea) party. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see myself as nonpartisan. I support a nonpartisan tax reform proposal called Fair Tax. I am not a member of a Tea Party.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably the biggest problem I have is that Tom is in the picture and he uploaded the picture. It is a conflict of interest for him to promote a picture of himself within this article.  The minor problem with the other picture is that it is a fellow fairtax friend of his that took the picture and sent it to Tom.  Photo's in the article should be devoid of any personal influence or bias.  Ironically, the IRS is accused of bias against the TPM, it does not serve the movement to have strong TPM bias in this article.  I think Tom has some valid issues regarding the IRS, he just needs to be careful about letting these valid issues make it impossible to edit from a neutral point of view.  Arzel (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * How I obtained a photo is of no relevance here. What matters is: is the photo relevant to the article. It is. Case closed. Deleting it will push me to bring this up on administrator noticeboards.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Truth be told. When considering what visually defines this scandal, I'm seeing the current hearings in the House. A few random people under a tree just doesn't do it for me. †TE†   Talk  19:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the relevant verbiage from Wikipedia's [|image use policy]:

Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images.

User-created images are ideal for Wikipedia, because there is no possibility of copyright infringement. But...

Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace;

The community has deemed that a photo featuring the user him- or herself is inappropriate. Not to worry, I have a solution. Federales (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for the record. When I first uploaded the image of myself and another protester, I did not indicate in the caption that it was me, or promote my name, or do anything to distract from the topic, somebody had to research it to see that it had been me; I only indicated it in this discussion to be upfront about all of this. It was not like I was promoting myself as some kind of protester. Us protesters do not make any money from this. I agree the other photo is better, plus since it has more people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are pro-lifers automatic conservatives?
Some of the activity in this scandal is not against tea partiers but pro-lifers. I've met a number of these people who bristle at the idea that pro-life = conservative. So why do we seem to make this assumption here? I'm going to add the term pro-life as separate from conservative in the opening. TMLutas (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the source that any exclusively pro-life groups were targeted? Not saying it's not true, but I don't see any such groups mentioned in the article currently. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Obama joke
This was recently added:


 * In 2009, President Obama joked about having the IRS audit Arizona State University, which had refused to grant him an honorary degree. The Wall Street Journal criticized him for this in an editorial, saying that "the President shouldn't even joke about abusing IRS power."[2][3]

I think a fair minded neutral person would perceive this as an editor conflating an (in-poor-taste) joke with an actual scandal, and I think that the inclusion acts to discredit the article.

I'm tempted to remove it. Objections? TJIC (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

· Agreed. The joke here is interpreted as a threat or part of a pattern. There is no evidence of either. Just out of context. Remove it. Tgran (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who added it. I think it's relevant.  If you are an IRS employee, obviously something like that is going to look like a signal that this sort of thing will be tolerated.  For an example of "background" information being added to an article about a partisan controversy, see, where the "background" is from 1972!William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see it's been removed. That a joke by the President of the United States is likely to be taken as a "signal", is, both in general and for this specific case, what Wikipedia calls "original research". And that's against the rules.


 * If a reliable source makes this connection, then it might be appropriate to include, but that's apparently not the case. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please reread the deleted text. The second sentence references a reliable source, the Wall Street Journal that made the inference. The text should go back in by your standard. TMLutas (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No inference was made that it was at all related to the current controversy, because the current controversy didn't exist in 2009. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If 99% of your so-called "reliable sources" are liberal, which, from reading the reference-list, they almost all are, then of course you'll never find justification for retaining the "Obama Joke." While I don't see it as any sort of obvious signal, it certainly can be a tone-setter. A "joke" like that coming from the president is more than inappropriate. The reactions to delete it are, IMO, just more of the thousands & thousands of examples of Wikipedia's leftist tilt. This site will NEVER be objective if it keeps running to Slate, the NYT, USA Today or the WP for its allegedly "reliable sources." How disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.254.20 (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That you think the NYT, USA Today or Washington Post are "liberal" demonstrates your particular bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the NY Times Public editor who wrote a column Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?. By running to the left of the NY Times Public Editor, you're saying something about your own biases. TMLutas (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are citing an op-ed piece written by someone whose job description includes criticizing the NYT. The news pages of NYT, WaPo, USA Today, and other papers are well-regarded as sources of factual information. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 13:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While it is well-established that the overwhelming majority of journalists are liberal, that does not necessarily extend to the content of the newspapers, which are universally considered balanced. The op-eds, on the other hand,... -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2013
Change investigation to "audit." The IG did not perform an investigation. In the terminology of IGs, these are two very different activities and they are done very differently. Anyone familiar with the work of federal IGs will understand the difference. An audit is done to determine how well a program functions. An investigations looks into misconduct as a general matter. The Treasury IG for Tax Administration only performed an audit.

96.26.95.255 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the TIGTA report does indeed refer to an "audit," and that the word "investigation" apparently does not appear in the report. I've changed the terminology in the article accordingly. In a later section, the article talks about a new TIGTA "investigation." I have not changed that terminology. We may want to do a little further checking on that. Famspear (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution of quotes
We need to be careful about how we attribute quotes. I changed some material in the article that seemed to imply that the Treasury Inspector General's report had included a statement which, in fact, is found nowhere in the report. The statement is actually a quote from the secondary source -- the Washington Post. The text of the quote is the Post's own interpretation of the report, not a "quote" from the text of the report. We don't want to give the false impression that the report itself contains this language when it does not. I changed the article to make it clear that the quote is from the Post article. Famspear (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was possibly targeted by IRS
Note: new info suggests probably not IRS targeting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see myself as a nonpartisan Wikipedian who supports Fair Tax, a nonpartisan but somewhat right-leaning approach calling to reform the IRS. While IRS incompetence was probably the bigger factor, it is possible I was singled out by the IRS which delayed processing my kids' tax returns, hampering their chances for financial aid from colleges they were accepted at. My kids filed their taxes on March 5 2013, electronically, via accountant, (I have documentation that the IRS received the filing) paid amount due, and the IRS held up processing their taxes for ten (10) weeks until May 19 2013. (again I have documentation). It normally takes less than 3 weeks to process new returns, according to FAFSA. College financial aid departments needed this information to award financial aid, but my kids missed out on much of this. This stuff really sucks. I suppose it is impossible to sue the IRS, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily impossible to sue but you really ought to be talking to a lawyer with relevant experience. I believe that a class action lawsuit is currently being contemplated so perhaps the ACLJ would be another point of contact. As an involved party you should, however, be cautious about making edits to the article. They're highly likely to be challenged and you have bigger fish to fry . Good luck. TMLutas (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I am unlikely to be adding anything more to this one. Most likely I'll be working on cicadas when they appear -- saw two already!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that there were some filing issues this year because of last minute changes to the tax code, this may have caused some of your delay. As for suing the IRS, well that is pretty difficult.  I don't think you could sue for a delay in your filings.  Arzel (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, filing changes may have been the reason. Yes, I agree suing the IRS would be very difficult; no illusions about that. The IRS finally got around to processing my kids returns after 10 weeks, so hopefully there will be some financial aid left; I will know in a few more weeks what the status is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Tomwsulcer: For what it's worth, the processing of federal income tax returns has nothing to do with the TEGE unit in Cincinnati that is the subject of the article. Even if your children's tax returns had been filed manually, the IRS employees who process the returns would have no way of looking at those returns and knowing that you are in favor of the Fair Tax. The IRS would have no way to "tie" your children's tax returns to your support for the Fair Tax, and would have no motivation to target your children. The fact that you favor the Fair Tax would almost certainly be of no interest to the IRS. And as far as I know, filing a return electronically would make it even harder for the IRS to delay the processing -- even if the IRS wanted to do so.

Not only that, but your support for the Fair Tax has nothing to do with processing of paperwork in connection with 501(c)(4) determinations (the work done by the TEGE people in Cincinnati that is the subject of this article).

I've been dealing with the IRS offices and Centers all over the United States (e.g., Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Brookhaven/Holtsville, Memphis, Ogden, Fresno, Tampa, Houston, Austin, etc.) for over 22 years. The IRS just does not have the kind of capability that you're thinking about. Famspear (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: Correction regarding my post, above. Because part of the Fair Tax proposal would involve eliminating the IRS, I think that IRS employees who would thereby lose their jobs actually could have a motivation to be against the Fair Tax! However, on the facts you described as I noted, it would be extremely unlikely for IRS employees to delay processing your children's tax returns based on your support of the Fair Tax. Just my two cents worth! Yours, Famspear (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, overall, I am inclined to think you are right. Thank you for your view. Most likely IRS incompetence rather than targeting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a little optimistic to state that the TEGE unit in Cincinnati is the focus of the article. As the title states, this is the 2013 IRS scandal. It has not been established how far this goes while it has already been established that Congress asked for increased scrutiny and there is clear evidence that other offices beyond Cincinnati were involved. This probably isn't relevant to Tomwsulcer but few outside the conservative movement thought it was this big even a month ago. We need to see where the evidence is going to lead, neither making the page too big nor too small. TMLutas (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Timeline
I understand there is a way to add a timeline to wiki-articles. Someone with knowledge with how to do them could use this Washington Post timeline as a guideline. Or, at the very least, the timeline could be used as a guide for expanding the article regarding areas that may be neglected and perhaps ought to be included:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/irs-investigation-timeline-who-knew-when/

Stylteralmaldo (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

When a timeline is introduced, would a more proficient wiki user please include the date that homeland security labeled tea party as a 'potential domestic terror threat'? And when the page is open to edit, would someone with the abilities please include this information as well as any substantiated evidence that may show if this was a reason for IRS acting 'out of bounds'?

Thank you Lojo-one (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are we burying the lede?
There are some WP:UNDUE issues that seem to be creeping in. Criminal investigations should trump the IG report in terms of seriousness yet we are talking a lot more about the IG audit which came early in the cycle. Later Congressional investigations also should carry more weight. This isn't a plea to trim down the IG report (though it could probably lose the massive blockquote) but rather to beef up the rest of the story. This is a very light article at present given the issues. TMLutas (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there reliable sources discussing the criminal investigation in any significant detail? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless there are leaks from within the FBI, it may be some time before substantive details of a criminal investigation are made public. As many articles have pointed out, it's not entirely clear what laws would have been violated, though it obviously violates principles of good government and would be grounds for firing. Ergo, at this point, the most detailed and neutral accounting of the situation that we have at this point is the Inspector General report. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Gift tax audit
There's no evidence presented in the only reliable source -- the WSJ -- that the gift tax audit was in any way related to the improper targeting of conservative organizations. The gift tax audit didn't even originate in the same unit as the controversial "tax-exempt organizations" area, and there doesn't appear to be anything improper about the audit - there's no evidence of improper targeting and it appears to have been a legitimate legal enforcement effort, if perhaps ill-advised. I think we need significantly more evidence that there's any relationship between the audits and the scandal before it gets included as part of the scandal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found a Bloomberg story which comments on the gift tax issue as part of the allegations, so I think it does belong. I'll reinsert shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NYT investigation
Regarding the following paragraph:

"An investigation by the New York Times revealed that several conservative organizations targeted for scrutiny by the IRS engaged in political activities raising legitimate questions about their tax-exempt status. For example, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, which complained to the IRS about its application being delayed, sent out regular e-mails in support of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and organized members to canvass neighborhoods to promote Romney - activities the Times said the IRS generally considers to be partisan. Ohio State University law professor Donald Tobin said 'While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”"

What bugs me here is that the NYT investigation ignores the heart of the scandal. The NYT found that the conservative organizations are involved in political activity. Well, duh.

But Media Matters has 501(c)(3) status. They are obviously a partisan organization. And although there is a petition to revoke their tax exempt status, the IRS does not appear to have been asking them all these intrusive questions the way it has been with the tea party. The same can be said of other liberal organizations -- MoveOn.org, etc.

The scandal is that the rules have been applied one way to one side and another way to the other. Surely the people at the NYT are smart enough to know that.

So, rather than having any bearing on the actual scandal, the NYT article simply proves that the NYT is itself sufficiently partisan that it is willing to carry out an "investigation" that ignores the actual issue at the heart of the scandal.

I am tempted to remove the paragraph NYT investigation because it's not relevant to the actual scandal. However, rather than start an edit war, I'm raising the issue here.William Jockusch (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * the IRS does not appear to have been asking them [Media Matters, etc] all these intrusive questions the way it has been with the tea party
 * Source? &mdash; goethean 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The targeted organization have already been identified, MMfA among others (like OFA) are not on that list. Arzel (talk)


 * Doesn't answer the question. William Jockusch said that the IRS "does not appear to have been asking them [Media Matters, etc] all these intrusive questions the way it has been with the tea party". I am asking for a source for that statement. &mdash; goethean 21:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * MoveOn.org is comprised of two separate organizations - a 501(c)4 "Civic Action" group and a registered political action committee for "Political Action." The PAC is properly registered and can do whatever it wants, politically, because donations to MoveOn Political Action are separate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You can add Organizing for America to that list as well. That organization is blatentely political and recieved it's 501 immediately.  Not suprising that the NYT would spin this one way.  Arzel (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Source? &mdash; goethean 21:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The new NYT story is clearly relevant, as it points to potential justifications for the increased scrutiny. While there is no justification for a "hit list" targeting groups merely because of their name, this report suggests that there could have been legitimate, well-founded reasons for the investigations of at least some of the groups which have complained. That is, the issue is more complicated than it originally appeared.
 * Your assertion that Media Matters for America should be investigated for engaging in exactly-similar partisan activity (expressly supporting a presidential candidate and organizing canvassing for that particular candidate) is entirely unsupported - and even if true, would not in any way justify removing this story. Rather, it would justify adding a sourced rebuttal stating the source's allegation that specific liberal groups engaging in exactly-similar activities were improperly not investigated. But that assertion has no source at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would argue that this is notable information. The NYT isn't ignoring the scandal; they have reported on it quite a bit, and this piece of information doesn't detract from it. It's worth knowing that many of these organizations (and many others on both political "sides") probably abuse IRS rules for tax exempt organizations. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 23:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My assertion is not that MoveOn and Media Matters should be investigated. My assertion is that both sides should have equal treatment.  My preference would be to accomplish that by not investigating anyone.  I was using MoveOn and Media Matters as examples.  If one is looking for a sourced statement, what I can provide is that conservative organizations were targeted while liberal ones were not.  That's sourced all over the place, e.g. the very first reference in the current version of the article.  That's the core issue of this article, and one the NYT finds convenient to ignore.William Jockusch (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is also true, sourced and included in the article that liberal organizations were investigated. See this Bloomberg News report - for example, a liberal group called "Emerge America" was denied tax-exempt status for excessive political entanglement. Certainly more conservative organizations than liberal ones were investigated, but it is not true that "liberal (organizations) were not" targeted.
 * The "scandal," such as it is, is that groups within the IRS created and circulated inappropriate criteria that clearly targeted conservative groups for intensive investigation. It is a defense, but not necessarily an excuse, to that accusation that there were legitimate reasons for investigating some of the groups which were scrutinized. Was Ohio Liberty Coalition investigated for improper reasons - because of its name - or because IRS investigators were scrutinizing the organization's activities? We don't know - but the fact that the group did things that were, at the very least, questionably-political, makes that a legitimate question to raise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a low-level IRS employee thought names with America, Texas and Clean Elections were likely conservative. ;-) †TE†   Talk  00:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Still missing the point. The article is not asserting that no liberal organization was investigated.  But they were not targeted as a group.William Jockusch (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, and...? The NYT is not asserting that conservative organizations weren't targeted as a group. They are reporting that the investigations of some conservative groups might have been well-founded. We do not know for a fact that Ohio Liberty Coalition was investigated because of its name. It is possible - now supported by evidence of at-least-questionably-political activities - that the investigation opened on their application was done for legitimate reasons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are still missing the point that groups were targeted because of their supposed conservative names, like Tea Party without any evidence that they were engaged in activities which would preclude their 501(4)C status. Arzel (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying that that happened to some groups. But unless there is specific proof presented that a given group was investigated for improper reasons, significant evidence that a group did engage in questionably-political activities raises the possibility that that group was actually investigated for good and substantial reasons, not merely based on its name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is specific evidence of exactly that. Namely the IG report.William Jockusch (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The IG report does not claim that every investigation of a conservative political group was improper. Moreover, the IG report is not a magic talisman of automatic truth that may be stated to override all other reliable sources. The New York Times, unambiguously also a reliable source, asserts that there may have been good reason to investigate certain groups, which may have engaged in political activities beyond those permitted to tax-exempt organizations. That is a notable and encyclopedic point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty soon you are going to have no RS's to hide behind. Even the NYT is going to have to admit the obvious.  You may as well admit what even more sources are finding out.  Arzel (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The NYT may be reliable in a strict sense, nontheless, the IG report is a formal document that should be given more weight than a paper's suggestion after-the-fact, and the law "expert" shopping they did to support it. As it stands the NYT article, while relevant, currently is given undue weight in the article. If it stays, all the necesary caveats should be applied to it Cheerio.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The IG report is given more weight. Entire chunks of the IG report are quoted in this story. The NY Times piece gets one paragraph.
 * As for your claim about "law expert shopping," that is your entirely-unsourced speculation, which deserves absolutely zero weight. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned that said paragraph is a hot mess.
 * Instead of:
 * "For example, the Ohio Liberty Coalition, which complained to the IRS about its tax-exempt application being delayed, sent out regular e-mails in support of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and organized members to canvass neighborhoods to promote Romney - activities which the Times said the IRS considers to be partisan and may have led to the group being investigated..."
 * We should actually read the source and write something like this:
 * The Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application was delayed in excess of two years, sent emails to their members regarding Mitt Romney presidential campaign events and handed out Romney "door hangers" while canvassing neighborhoods. Former IRS officials and tax experts say this type of behavior would provide a "legitimate basis" for additional scrutiny.

✅ :) †TE†   Talk  19:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More readable, better flow, definitely an improvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Compliments are few and far between around here. I appreciate it. Cheers! †TE†   Talk  20:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the relevance of this. 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to engage in political activity.  It's not exactly a secret that groups like Crossroads GPS and Organizing For America do exactly that.  So the NYT did an investigation that showed that the organizations did things that they are in fact allowed to do.  While we are at it, should we add to the article a note that the 501(c)(4) organization Coffee Party USA also engages in political activity?William Jockusch (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

NOM bits
The NOM thing does not belong in the lede right now because, at this point, that claim is entirely based on one organization and its unsubstantiated allegations. They have filed a lawsuit, but they have presented no evidence to support their claims and no other organization has alleged that their documents were intentionally leaked. Therefore, it's undue weight to include it in the article lede as if it's as important as the substantiated reports of wrongful targeting which are supported by independent investigations. If more organizations file lawsuits or the allegation gains significant traction, then this should be revisited and I would agree that it might belong there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed a "Fox News Nation" link which is actually a republished article from Breitbart.com - Breitbart is well-known for a total lack of journalistic integrity, see Shirley Sherrod, etc. The site has been repeatedly discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and consensus is that it should be considered an unreliable polemic source citable only for its own opinions. There are sufficient reliable sources (Politico, the USA Today op-ed) there that we don't need a bad one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You're libeling Breitbart over that video. Please stop.
 * The IBD has a supporting article on the NOM issue. Or is IBD also not up to your standard? TMLutas (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not libel to (accurately) point out that the Shirley Sherrod tape was misleading and that thanks to any number of crazy sensationalistic unhinged reports, Breitbart's journalistic reputation and credibility is effectively at the level of the Weekly World News. A link to a right-wing blog post is hardly going to convince me otherwise, just like I'm not going to convince you of anything with a DailyKos post.
 * Besides, it's a fundamental legal principle that the dead can't be libeled.
 * An IBD editorial is interesting, but it is not a reliable source for anything other than restating the IBD's own opinions. The only source cited by the IBD's editorial board for those allegations is... the Breitbart article. Circular sourcing does not improve an unreliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:SOAP and WP:RS. Editorials like the one you are linking to are not reliable sources for statements of fact. This has been said repeatedly, so I hope you are listening. In fact, there are already some op-eds being used as sources in the article that should be removed. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reminder, daily news roundups are conveniently gathered
TaxProf blog is what you would think it is, a blog by a professor who teaches taxation issues. His daily roundups on this issue are a great resource for finding good sourcing for whatever points need it on this article. TMLutas (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

OR tag on the FOIA section
I'm inclined to remove the whole section but I thought I would give the author time to provide verifiable secondary sources. The section creates a clear implication that the IRS violated FOIA here, but there are no secondary sources to support that claim - hence, it is original synthesis to suggest that Fact A and Fact B together create Implication C. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. "More time" should mean a few minutes. If someone is going to add something like that, they should have their sources lined up before they put it into an article. Dezastru (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I note that there are times when "Fact A" and "Fact B" might uncontroversially be used to create Implication C — but this is not one of them, particularly because FOIA and open records laws are incredibly nuanced with any number of exceptions and we simply don't have any sort of context or secondary sources analyzing whether these two facts really do implicate a FOIA violation by the IRS or whether it's something else entirely. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved from article:


 * On May 27, 2010 The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law through an investigative journalist requested"Documents relating to any training, memo's, letters, policies, etc. that detail how the 'Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division' reviews applications for non-profits, 501(c)3's, and other not for profit organizations specifically mentioning 'Tea Party,' 'the Tea Party,' 'tea party,' 'tea parties.' http://www.ohioconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IRS-Original-Letter.pdf"


 * On January 6, 2011, the IRS responded that "no documents specifically responsive to your request" existed. http://www.ohioconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IRS-response-letter.pdf However, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's investigation identified a number of documents that had been created by that point.

This is indeed original research with no citation to a reliable, previously published third party source. Famspear (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice that one of the links in the excised material goes to what purports to be the actual Freedom of Information Request: an undated letter from an individual supposedly located at "3410 Louisiana, apt. 3112" in Houston, Texas, which is in Harris County. I just checked the online records of the Harris County Appraisal District, and there is no record of any such address. Louisiana Street in Houston is a major downtown street. There is a listing for a 3401 Louisiana, a 3415 Louisiana, and a 3418 Louisiana. Also, the phone number listed for this individual is a "614" area code, which is an Ohio area code (not anywhere in Texas). It is of course very possible that an individual can obtain a cell phone with an Ohio area code while living in Ohio and then retain that phone number after moving to Houston, Texas. However, an undated letter, from an address that may not exist in Houston, Texas, from a person having a phone number not normally found in Texas, is somewhat suspect. Famspear (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Content of your prayers"
This edit, summarized as adding and grouping IRS questions, removed, without explanation, sourced prose about Rep. Aaron Schock's assertion that the IRS had asked the Coalition for Life of Iowa to "please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers". This misquote of the IRS' actual question was picked up by conservative commentators, as well as by news organizations. Since the now-current edit contains characterizations of facts/spin/talking points/controversy about the controversy (e.g. Rep. Elijah Cummings June 9, 2013 claim that a "conservative Republican" IRS manager initiated targeted reviews, and Rep. Darrell Issa's dismissal of that claim, and his statements about Cummings' motives in making it), it would seem that Rep. Schock's more widely-discussed characterization of an IRS question also would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. The unexplained removal of this prose might be construed as subtlely altering the article's impartiality by removing a potentially embarrassing misquote or strained characterization made on one side of the debate. It might be better to have some kind of reactions/controversies section within the article. That's beyond the scope of what I propose to do right now - namely: to restore/improve this prose inline. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

targeting groups whose only goal is tax evasion...........
is not a scandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

article name
i got here from a link called IRS Tea Party investigation, but now we have a POV title of 2013 IRS scandal. it's just a scandal to right-wing partisans. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is a scandal is clearly true. It refers to what the IRS did and also to the major media and political response.  It satisfies NPOV.  Andrew327 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That you think that the scandal is true is irrelevant. That there was initially a lot of poor, almost completely unresearched reporting (with a few exceptions like this New Yorker piece) is besides that point now that more recent, somewhat more researched reporting showed that it was indeed yet another fake scandal blown up primarily by House Republicans. Actually if Wikipedia, as a policy, labels all charges and claims originating from House committees as actually being from a contra-reliable source, that would save a lot of wasted arguing and edit-warring down the road on related or connected Wikipedia articles. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your issue is with the scope of the allegations of scandalous conduct. However, the IRS admitted that it used improper criteria in selecting nonprofit applicants for scrutiny.  That impropriety, given the public response, constitutes a scandal.  It's not just the allegations of the House committee, although it's interesting and relevant to the scandal that they've investigated various alleged conduct and thus far come up with nothing.  Dyrnych (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The greater issue is that these Wikipedia articles that get quickly created based on basically manufactured controversies and scandals driven by opportunistic and malicious political posturing and lousy, inept news media reporting don't benefit anybody at all looking for clear, no-nonsense information. There should be more of a probationary period at the least, maybe have the article be up for automatic deletion after one month if it becomes increasingly clear by then that it's yet just another made-up scandal/controversy. -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free: WP:MOVE. Dezastru (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We go with what the common name is. The media uses IRS scandal. That's the common name. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

New info via Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-24/irs-screened-applications-using-progressive-israel-.html LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That article does not cite even one specific example of any liberal group complaining that it had been targeted. A good reporter would have reported this information. This suggests that the IRS is lying about liberal groups having been targeted. Ss6j81avz (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That is nonsense. Whether or not any liberal group COMPLAINED about being targeted is an entirely separate issue from whether the IRS used liberal-sounding keywords to select groups for scrutiny.  And to extrapolate from a lack of record complaints of liberal groups that the IRS is lying is a giant and unwarranted logical leap. Dyrnych (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There is new information available. Liberal groups did get bumped for political review, a grand total of 6 of them. 20 applied that would have been flagged if the Progressive keyword in the BOLO list would have been rigorously applied, 6 were flagged and 14 weren't. 100% of Tea Party, 9/12, and Patriot names were flagged according to the IG in a letter to Rep Levin of Ways and Means. It is not unreasonable that a selection of groups left and right get a more thorough examination. but when 1/3 of the liberal groups get examined and all of the conservative ones do off the BOLO list, this is a scandal. The IG also found 175 groups that should have been enhanced reviewed under normal IRS rules but weren't. I wonder what the ideological balance was on those cases. No doubt it will come out.

Another fake scandal
As the news media slowly moves away from its "he said/she said" coverage, this IRS thing is looking more and more like the fake scandal that it always was. The only real scandal is that groups that were obviously politically-based first and foremost were still given 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, which amounts to an indirect subsidy for political activity. There's a nice Reuters piece from yesterday, June 17, that neatly sums up the entire affair: "The real IRS scandal" by Herman Schwartz.

I don't suppose there's any chance that title of the Wikipedia article can be changed to something slightly more in keeping with reality? -BC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * or at least less POV? 2013 IRS Investigations or 2013 IRS Accusations or something. it is a 'scandal' only selectively: among rush limbaugh and glenn beck followers mostly. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Time Magazine, CBS News, Washington Post, CNN, ABC News all use the word "scandal" to describe this, uh, scandal. Your assertion about Limbaugh and Beck is a naked absurdity. Federales (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the TIGTA letter of 26 June 2013 before you draw conclusions. Fake scandal? I don't think so. 298 files were sent for enhanced review, 2 were incomplete 6 were progressive, and 290 weren't. 100% of groups with Tea Party, 9/12, and Patriot in their name sent up for enhanced review 14 of 20 progress/occupy groups weren't. Progressive was included in a BOLO section labeled historical (which is a little weird in itself but a different problem). Rep Levin on Ways and Means asked a number of questions from the left perspective which is his right, but the answers coming back blew his assumptions completely out of the water. Let's deal in facts people, not MSNBC circle jerks. TMLutas (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

292 Tea Party Groups number
This article currently suggests that 292 Tea Party groups were selected for scrutiny. It bases that assertion on a Washington Examiner article that clearly misreads the IRS's admissions (and shows its bias by using phrases like "witchhunt"). Regardless of what the right-wing echo chamber thinks, the IRS in no respect has ever suggested that 292 Tea Party groups were singled out. Not that Talking Points Memo is a nonideological source, but it does a fantastic job of | showing exactly why this number is pure fantasy. And this type of faulty information should not be a part of Wikipedia, no matter how many right-wing sources repeat the claim. Dyrnych (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the Washington Examiner article confuses the claim "100% of groups identified as tea party groups were referred for additional scrutiny" with the claim "100% of the groups referred for additional scrutiny were tea party groups." And just because other dubious sources have reposted or otherwise referenced that claim doesn't mean that the claim is worthy of inclusion in this article. Dyrnych (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Examiner story makes no such claim ("100% of the groups referred for additional scrutiny were tea party groups"). And the TPM piece is an editorial. Federales (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Examiner story doesn't explicitly make that claim, but the claim that it DOES make (292 tea party groups targeted) depends on the implicit intermediate conclusion that 100% of the groups referred for additional scrutiny were tea party groups. Here's the logic there:


 * 1. The IRS selected 298 groups for additional scrutiny.
 * 2. The IRS has stated that "100 percent of the tax-exempt applications with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were processed as potential political cases during the timeframe of our audit."
 * 3. The IRS has stated that only 6 groups with "progressive" in their names were selected for additional scrutiny.
 * 4. Therefore, 100% of the remaining 292 groups are tea party groups.
 * 5. Therefore, the IRS selected 292 tea party groups for additional scrutiny.


 * You can't get to 5 without 4. And while I agree that the TPM piece is an editorial, that doesn't in any way diminish its critique of the 292 tea party groups claim.  This isn't a policy dispute, it's a factual matter, and the Washington Times and Washington Examiner just flat out get it wrong in a way that other sources don't do.  Here's | Politifact debunking a similar claim made by liberals that because 96 of the 298 groups selected for scrutiny were conservative, the rest were non-conservative.  But that's false too!  And the Politifact article notes that the inspector general explicitly claimed that "his report did not break out the political makeup of the 202 [other] groups because it looked only at the names of the organizations: 'Certain names were so generic that we were unable to determine whether or not they had a particular point of view.'"  And here's the nonpartisan Tax Analysts' | analysis of the treasury general report that also notes the varied ideology of the non-tea-party groups selected for scrutiny.  And reputable reports (such as | this from Politico and | this from NPR and |this from The Hill and | this from the Wall Street Journal and | this from Bloomberg) have eschewed the faulty logic that the Washington Times and Washington Examiner employed while still reporting on the actual substance of the letter. Dyrnych (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, "tea party groups" in the sense that the Times and the Examiner are using them is not the same as the sense that TIGTA is using them so that's one level of confusion. TIGTA talks about 298 - 2 incomplete files that were thrown out of their analysis (according to the letter). That's 296, if basic math is not original research. But going back to the TIGTA letter, they do not talk about tea party groups at all as an ideological identification, claiming that ideological identification is an inappropriate function of the IG and they may have a point. Instead they talk about groups with this or that term in the name. The 6 groups the press is labeling progressive are groups with the word progress or progressive in them. The 14 non-scrutinized progressive groups are not an ideological category, just ones that have the term in their name. The same thing operates for the "tea party groups" category which is a press invention and not part of the TIGTA examination for exactly the same reasoning. The letter talks about groups with "tea party", "patriot", and "9/12" in their name being 100% examined and that the number of those groups is 96. What's unclear, and it was unclear to TIGTA as well according to the letter, is what these other groups were doing there being forwarded for political scrutiny. Progressive groups did not go to the political scrutiny group apparently but to a different group labelled TAG (touch and go). I would support using the smaller number of 96 groups at present until we get more visibility on the other 200 so long as it's also understood that the vast bulk of these groups were forwarded for reasons unknown and that TIGTA recommended that they stop doing referrals without reason. TMLutas (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Perspective

The house committee testimony clearified that while some progressive organization were in fact on the watch list, the total number was 7, all of which were approved. The vigor whit which the democtratic member of the committee are insisting that both types of organizations, conc=sertive and democratic were targeted when the facts show 293 progressive organizations were denied status, subjected to extensive questioning and had their donors subject to increased audit. No such treatment was affored to the progressives and again all were improved.° — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billerica50 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of document leaks
The claim that someone pretending to be a NOM employee secured the IRS records is only Gallagher's "theory," as stated by Gallagher herself in the citation. She gives no evidence for the theory. In other words, it is complete speculation and should not be stated as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.163.90 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not currently being stated as fact. The fact being stated is that the head of NOM is alleging that this took place. That is fact, he is alleging it. The ProPublica stuff in the same section is admitted by the recipient of the leak who claimed that they got that stuff without asking for it. TMLutas (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Further investigations
So we have an investigation by oversight under Issa. We have a repurposed investigation that's been running since 2011 by ways and means under Stark. We have TIGTA continuing work. We have the FBI, which nobody seems to have heard from yet. And we have the whole unraveling of the post Nixon IRS reforms which seems to be ticking off a number of people but doesn't seem to fit neatly anywhere organizational yet. Have I missed any? TMLutas (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "And we have the whole unraveling of the post Nixon IRS reforms..." It's ticking me off because it's pure SYNTH.  It looks like you're trying to imply through positioning that information where you've placed it that the White House is guilty of doing so when none of the secondary sources cited for the ACTUAL investigation support that claim.  And that's basically the definition of SYNTH and the reason why I removed that statement.


 * I also dispute the idea that the "further investigations" section needs subheadings that conveniently make it appear that there are multiple separate controversies as opposed to interrelated aspects of the same controversy. It's jarring, unnecessary, and loses the clarity of the timeline structure.  How is it more logical to break things down into little sub-controversies rather than show the order of the events in the overarching investigation?  Especially when you're making unsourced statements like "The investigation started on June 3, 2011 and has accelerated with the recent admissions of improper ideological screens in the applications of non-profits."


 * Also, it is a congressional investigation and the heading should appropriately be "2013 Congressional investigation." The Inspector General isn't just doing things on his own initiative; he's doing things at the request of the House.  Just as it's unhelpful to break things down into multiple mini-controversies, it's unhelpful to lose the clarity of "Congressional investigation" just because there are multiple committees investigating.  And if we hear from the FBI, that can certainly be its own section or a subsection, depending on what information shows up.


 * All that said, I'd like to see some reasons for reverting my edits that speak directly to these concerns. Dyrnych (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 03:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What the White House did or did not do in detail is currently unclear in the public record (if you know different, let us know) but what is already known justifies the stub that was put in. Would you feel better if I added in references from McConnell about the IRS' thuggish abuse of power and all the nixon references floating around? I surely can but I was actually working not to make this a hit piece but to have a short reference on the issue and iteratively expand that out step by step in a way that doesn't strike the reasonable as partisan.


 * There are multiple, separate investigations. Why is it more informative to blob them all up together? If somebody comes here and is interested in the Ways and Means investigation, shouldn't that be available as a link from the top? Do they really need to plow through all the rest to get what they're looking for? Let's not be obscurantist.


 * It is simply not the case that all further investigations are coming from congress. TIGTA is not an arm of Congress, neither is the FBI. Simple factual accuracy demands that we don't miscategorize the non-congressional investigations, mislabeling them all as congressional.


 * Only because you asked, I'll give more detailed reasons for reverting. The reason I reverted was that you made major changes in structure, some of which were inaccurate, that served more to obscure than enlighten. Atomize your changes and we can argue them out in talk, forming consensus. If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I am often doing a lot of little ones, one after the other when I do an edit session. That means that people who disagree with one thing but not another can revert more precisely. You don't have to follow my example but big blob moves will predictably lead to big blog reactions.


 * As a sign of good faith, I'll let you know that I'm the most unsatisfied in my own work with the Nixon bit. I think that the phenomenon it is describing is real, the comment about it is justified, but it really should be reworked in a way that doesn't coatrack Watergate into this article but is clearer about what is at stake. The problem is that the outrage at this stuff is pretty inchoate. People know it's wrong but the left doesn't want to make the Obama-Nixon comparison and the right isn't doing it very well in a way that would fit Wikipedia's style. TMLutas (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * When you have an investigation that just started and with one sentence of information, it is inappropriate for it to have its own subsection. This is poor style and it makes it more difficult to understand, not less. It would be easier to understand to briefly detail all such investigations in a single paragraph. If you have a complex investigation with a lot of weight and detail, that's another story. Half the subsections under "further investigations" aren't actual investigations anyway. Someone invoking fifth amendment rights isn't a controversy and it isn't an investigation, and one paragraph on it doesn't need its own subsection. A letter from the auditor to a congressman isn't a "further investigation." The piece about Nixon is in my opinion irrelevant, but if it belongs anywhere it's in the background section, not a section on "further investigations" (on what planet does it make sense to put it there?). That whole subsection makes implications without any basis in fact. No reliable sources have provided evidence of "coordination" between the IRS and the White House. A high-ranking official in the executive branch visiting the White House means nothing, and such visits are more commonly used as a partisan political attack than proof of actual wrongdoing. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 16:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I second everything that Hazydan stated. I think I've adequately defended my changes, especially those to the Nixon claims.  You stated: "The problem is that the outrage at this stuff is pretty inchoate. People know it's wrong but the left doesn't want to make the Obama-Nixon comparison and the right isn't doing it very well in a way that would fit Wikipedia's style."  Then we shouldn't use OR to make that claim, nor should we synthesize sources to make that claim for ourselves.  To outright imply that claim as fact when no reliable source does is unacceptable per Wikipedia standards.  And even though you think that the comparison is warranted, those standards demand that you refrain from injecting your beliefs into the article.  As far as "feel[ing] better if [you] added in references from McConnell about the IRS' thuggish abuse of power and all the nixon references floating around," that would be something else entirely; then we're attributing the source of a controversial claim to a proponent of that claim, not stating the claim as fact or implying it as fact.  But I don't think it adds anything to the article to parrot Republican talking points in a section that's not devoted to Republican responses to the controversy.


 * And as far as the separateness of the investigations goes, who honestly cares which committee's investigation led to whatever relevant information it elicited? The point is that Congress's investigation elicited the information that is relevant to this page.  If you want to talk about the efficacy of the Ways and Means Committee or the Oversight Committee, that's much more relevant to the pages on those committees and much less relevant to this page.  And TIGTA is not an arm of Congress, but the investigation (1) was conducted at the behest of Congress and (2) continues to be directed by Congress.  The TIGTA investigation is over except to the extent that Congress directs follow-ups.


 * In the interest of coming to consensus, I'll agree to limit the comprehensiveness of each of my edits. However, I absolutely dispute that the edit you reverted rose to the level of a major change to the structure of the article justifying your reversion. I'm not aware of a WP policy that requires "atomizing" edits. Dyrnych (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hazydan seems to be asserting that stubbing is not a legitimate wikipedia practice. Are we editing in the same world? If you don't like the length, that's why there's an expand section tag. Don't go looking for excuses to exclude encyclopedic information. TMLutas (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Dyrnych - Who cares who is running an investigation? I care, and I suspect lots of other people care too. You have to ask different people for evidence if the investigations span different committees and it's useful to know which committee staff you should be asking for which detail if you want to learn more about a particular aspect (as a journalist looking for background might want to do). Then there's also the FBI investigation which I came here today to add into the mix (a nice article on its status just came out today) and find that the structure is completely blown and there's no place for a subhead on that. That's funny in an ironic way because the article is about how much of a sham the FBI investigation is. TIGTA is also a member of the executive branch and it is improper to lump TIGTA in as part of Congress' investigation. Congress can demand information from TIGTA like they can demand information from any part of the executive but that doesn't mean that he is working for them. You might as well call Lois Lerner a part of the legislative branch. It's exactly the same power relationship. Unfortunately, I can't revert to the old structure as the software can't do so in a reasonable manner so I'm going to be rebuilding. Please do not insist on TIGTA as part of Congress and please make room for non-Congress investigations. They already exist and there's lawsuits being filed so there should be space for executive branch investigations and private ones too. The structure of further investigations accommodates all of that quite nicely. If you want something different, that's fine, but not if it reduces functionality. TMLutas (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, stubs refer to whole articles, not sections. You don't need a new section when there's not enough information to fill a section. I'm not talking about excluding information, it's a style issue. Look at featured articles and tell me how many sections you find that include one sentence. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. We're not here to assist people in inquiring into congressional investigations. We're here to present information gleaned from secondary sources in a readable, logical format. And the subheadings that you seem wedded to manifestly do not do this.
 * 2. "They already exist and there's lawsuits being filed so there should be space for executive branch investigations and private ones too." If there's something relating to these that's worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and that happens in the future, we can absolutely add this.  But it's nonsensical to "save space" for these things that might never occur, especially in a section that's basically confined to the fruits of congressional investigations.  That's not how Wikipedia functions.  Also, it is painfully easy for someone to file a lawsuit, and it proves nothing more than that they can pay the filing fee.  We have no idea if the lawsuits are going to be dismissed on 12(b)(6) grounds, dismissed on sovereign immunity, dismissed on ripeness, dismissed on standing, or dismissed for any other reason.
 * 3. You seem to misunderstand the way that congressional investigations work. Lois Lerner is not part of the legislative branch, but she's testifying at the behest of the legislature.  Likewise, the TIGTA followup "investigation" is being carried out at the behest of the legislature.  And I've noted that your claim that there's a second ongoing TIGTA investigation is based on a single source: an opinion piece that quotes an anonymous source as saying that there's a subsequent investigation going on.  That is not a reliable source for a matter of fact, and I have removed it twice.  Please stop adding it, because it violates Wikipedia policy. Dyrnych (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)